|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence |
| |
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY |
| |
| |
DATE: |
December 1, 2003 |
| |
|
SET TIME: |
10:00 a.m. |
| |
|
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
December 16, 2003 |
| |
| |
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors |
| |
FROM: |
Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services |
| |
SUBJECT: |
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Coastal Development Permit, pursuant to Section 6328.5 of the County Ordinance Code to allow temporary farm-related entertainment activities, including prepared food sales, a petting zoo, pony and elephant rides, and one children's air balloon slide from October 1st through October 31st each year, located at 11881 San Mateo Road in the unincorporated Half Moon Bay area of San Mateo County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. |
| |
| |
County File Number: |
PLN 2002-00712 (Cozzolino) |
| |
| |
RECOMMENDATION |
| |
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's Decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit, County File No. PLN 2002-00712, excluding the use of exotic animals on the site, the by making the required findings and adopting the conditions of approval listed in Attachment A. |
| |
|
BACKGROUND |
| |
Report Prepared By: China Osborn, Project Planner, Telephone 650/599-7217 |
| |
Appellant: Oscar Braun/California Watershed Posse |
| |
Applicant: John Cozzolino |
| |
Owner: Jim Cozzolino |
| |
Location: 11881 San Mateo Road, Half Moon Bay |
| |
APNs: 056-331-050, -110, and -120 |
| |
Size: Approximately 19 acres |
| |
Existing Zoning: PAD/CD (Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development) |
| |
General Plan Designation: Agriculture |
| |
Existing Land Use: Agricultural uses, including Christmas tree farming and pumpkin patches |
| |
Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Zone Map indicates that a portion of the parcel adjacent to Pilarcitos Creek parcel is located in Zone A, 100-year flood Zone; Community Panel No. 0603 11 0225 B, effective July 5, 1984. |
| |
Environmental Evaluation: Exempt under provisions of CEQA, Section 15303, Class 3, regarding erection of small new structures. |
| |
Setting: The project parcel is located in the unincorporated area of Half Moon Bay off Highway 92. The area designated for farm-related entertainment activities during the month of October is in the section of the parcel, north of Pilarcitos Creek, adjacent to Highway 92. This area slopes down slightly from Highway 92, but quickly flattens and remains flat to the creek, which bisects the property from east to west. An existing road (unpaved farm road) accesses the property from Highway 92 and travels adjacent to the creek, creating a buffer between the creek and the location of the proposed activities. There is an existing flat area on the western portion of the property, which will serve as parking for visitors and requires no improvements for use. |
| |
Chronology: |
| |
Date |
|
Action |
| |
|
|
October 2002 |
- |
4-C's Ranch brought two (2) Asian elephants to their property as part of their entertainment activities during pumpkin season, offering elephant rides to the public. |
| |
|
|
October 17, 2002 |
- |
Planning Division staff informed the applicant that the entertainment activities at the site, including the elephant rides required issuance of applicable permits from the County Planning Division. Planning staff requested that the required materials be submitted by December 2, 2002. |
| |
|
|
November 27, 2002 |
- |
The applicant submits a permit application for seasonal farm-related entertainment activities. |
| |
|
|
September 24, 2003 |
- |
Planning Commission considers the proposed project and approves the Coastal Development Permit to allow prepared food sales, a petting zoo, pony rides, and one air balloon slide at 4-C's Ranch during the month of October, each year. Planning Commission denies the proposed use of exotic animals in the petting zoo and for elephant rides. |
| |
|
|
September 30, 2003 |
- |
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the use of exotic animals at 4-C's Ranch for seasonal entertainment activities is received by Planning Division staff. |
| |
|
|
December 16, 2003 |
- |
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing to consider the appeal. |
| |
DISCUSSION |
| |
A. |
PREVIOUS ACTION |
| |
|
| |
The originally proposed temporary farm-related activities considered by the Planning Commission included elephant rides. The Planning Commission heard public testimony of many individuals regarding traffic and animal rights concerns. The Planning Commission by vote of 4-1 (Commissioner Kennedy dissented) approved the Coastal Development Permit for the temporary farm-related activities, but denied the use of exotic animals and thus the request to have elephant rides at 4-C's Ranch. Commissioner Kennedy expressed a feeling that the use of the exotic animals in this case could be considered accessory to the sale of pumpkins and should be approved. The applicant through the appeal is requesting that the originally proposed elephant rides be allowed, in addition to the other approved activities. |
| |
|
B. |
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL |
| |
|
| |
The statement attached to the Application for Appeal (see Attachment C), submitted to the Planning Division, refers to the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Wildlife Associates facility, which houses exotic animals in the Planned Agricultural District (PAD). The appeal letter states that the decision of the Planning Commission in the Wildlife Associates case "re-defined" domesticated farm animals to include all exotic animals, and that exotic animals should, therefore, be permitted on all traditional farms (PAD Zoning Districts). |
| |
|
| |
That is incorrect. The Planning Commission, in approving the Wildlife Associates proposal, did not expand the meaning of domesticated farm animals. Rather, the decision of the Planning Commission was based on a set of criteria to determine the impact that the exotic animals would have on the agricultural productivity of the property. Because the established criteria were met, the Planning Commission determined that having exotic animals in the Wildlife Associates case was a use accessory to agriculture and did not require issuance of a PAD permit. Staff, upon its review of the Cozzolino proposal found that all of the criteria established in the Wildlife Associates case for preservation of agricultural land was met in Cozzolino's proposal as well. Therefore, staff determined that this proposal does not require issuance of a Planned Agricultural District Permit and the Planning Commission concurred (see full discussion in Section C.2 of this report). |
| |
|
| |
The permit under review and on appeal here is a Coastal Development Permit for temporary farm-related entertainment activities associated with pumpkin sales. The Planning Commission concluded that the use of exotic animals as part of these activities was inconsistent with the principles and policies of the Local Coastal Program and excluded their use, but approved the rest of the proposal. |
| |
|
C. |
KEY ISSUES |
| |
|
| |
1. |
History of 4-C's Ranch and this Permit |
| |
|
|
| |
|
The Cozzolino family has been farming in the unincorporated area of Half Moon Bay since 1945. The family farms produce Christmas trees, pumpkins, flowers, and vegetables. The family's 4-C's Ranch has participated in Fall pumpkin sales for approximately 20 years. As the agricultural industry has changed and surviving as a farmer has become more difficult, many farmers who participate in pumpkin season festivities in Half Moon Bay have looked for new ways to attract consumers and sell their agricultural products. The Cozzolino family decided to add pony rides, a petting zoo, and a children's air balloon slide. In October 2002, they also offered elephant rides. Offering elephant rides was very controversial and the County received many complaints that year regarding the elephants (see Attachment L). The County required that the applicant apply for all applicable permits with the County for the proposed activities on the property during the month of October. The applicant complied with this request and immediately submitted an application to the County for a Planned Agricultural District Permit and a Coastal Development Permit. Upon completing research and reviewing a previous Planning Commission decision regarding the use of exotic animals, staff determined that a Planned Agricultural District Permit was not required (see complete discussion Section C.2 of this report). Therefore, the permit under consideration by the Board of Supervisors is a Coastal Development Permit for temporary entertainment activities associated with selling pumpkins during the month of October, excluding the use of exotic animals. Furthermore, staff determined that this project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission because it is located within 100 feet of Pilarcitos Creek. |
| |
|
|
| |
2. |
Use of Exotic Animals and the Decision of the Planning Commission |
| |
|
|
| |
|
When determining whether having exotic animals on a Planned Agricultural District (PAD) property could be considered a permitted use, staff referred to a previous decision by the Planning Commission. In March of 1999, a proposal, submitted by Wildlife Associates, came before the Planning Commission for a decision. The proposal included allowing a facility for non-releasable, rehabilitated animals used for education programs to operate at 1794 Higgins Canyon Road, in unincorporated Half Moon Bay, south of Highway 92-a PAD zoned parcel. The proposed Wildlife Associates facility houses both domestic farm animals and non-domesticated wild animals (exotic animals). |
| |
|
|
| |
|
The Planning Commission made the finding that the proposed Wildlife Associates use was "accessory to agriculture" and allowed by right for several reasons, including that less than 5 percent of the site was devoted to keeping of non-domesticated wild animals, while the majority of the site continued to be designated for traditional agriculture, and the project was not deemed to have an adverse effect on agriculture on this site or other agricultural lands in the vicinity. This determination assisted staff with the review of the project currently under consideration. Staff concluded no PAD Permit was required and the Planning Commission agreed. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Thus the current project includes only a Coastal Development Permit. The Planning Commission concluded that the inclusion of exotic animals among the farm-related entertainment activities associated with pumpkin sales was inconsistent with the principles and policies of the Local Coastal Program and denied that use while approving the balance of the proposal. |
| |
|
|
| |
3. |
Classification of the Use |
| |
|
|
| |
|
The applicant is proposing seasonal produce sales and temporary entertainment activities on the subject property during the month of October and the erection of temporary tents to house those activities. Portions of the parcel on which the proposed activities are located are prime agricultural lands, comprising Class I, II, or III soils, suitable particularly for production of artichokes and Brussels sprouts. By right (not subject to issuance of a permit) agricultural uses are permitted on prime agricultural lands, per Section 6352 of the Zoning Regulations. Included in the uses allowed by right under this Section, are not only production farming, but also temporary stalls for sale of agricultural goods and "non-residential development customarily considered accessory to agriculture." |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Section 6351.F of Chapter 21A (Planned Agricultural District) of the County Zoning Regulations, defines "non-residential development customarily considered accessory to agriculture" as: |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Barns, storage/equipment sheds, stables for farm animals, fences, water wells, well covers, pump houses, water storage ranks, water impoundments, water pollution control facilities for agricultural purposes and other similar uses determined to be appropriate by the Planning Director. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
The proposal does not include any permanent structures, but rather temporary structures for the housing of animals that will be available in the petting zoo and pony and elephant rides (if permitted). As indicated by the above definition, stables and barns would be considered accessory to agriculture. Moreover, because no permanent foundations are required, the use of the subject parcel for these temporary activities will not result in the destruction of prime soils. All tents and signs associated with this event are removed from the site starting on October 31st. The Planning Commission has historically approved similar uses at Pastorino Farms, adjacent to the proposed project to the west, in conjunction with pumpkin festival activities. The Planning Commission agreed with Planning staff's determination that the farm-related entertainment/recreational activities proposed by Mr. Pastorino during the pumpkin season would not result in the conversion of prime agricultural land, and were determined to be a permitted use, not subject to issuance of a PAD permit. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
In summation, staff believes that the Board of Supervisors should make the same finding that was made in the case of Pastorino Farms and determine that the proposed activities, with the exception of exotic animals and elephant rides, in this case are temporary in nature, do not involve conversion of prime agricultural soils, do not reduce the agricultural carrying capacity of the parcel, and are accessory to traditional agricultural uses associated with pumpkin season. Therefore, as uses considered accessory to agriculture, the temporary erection of stalls for a petting zoo, pony rides, and prepared food sales, as well as the children's air balloon slide are uses allowed by right at any location in the Planned Agricultural District, and this proposal does not require issuance of a Planned Agricultural District Permit. |
| |
|
|
| |
4. |
Conformance with General Plan |
| |
|
|
| |
|
The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the County's General Plan and has been found to be in conformance with all applicable policies, with a specific discussion of the following: |
| |
|
|
| |
|
General Plan Policy 9.4 (Land Use Objectives for the Rural Lands) allows for the provision of a diversity of outdoor recreational opportunities for existing and future County residents and enhancement of creative enterprise by encouraging uses ancillary and accessory to agriculture. The project provides a variety of outdoor recreational and educational activities associated with its pumpkin season sales. Pony rides, petting zoo, and a children's air balloon slide are creative ways of encouraging participation of the public in pumpkin season events, which provides an economic opportunity for this historic ranch in Half Moon Bay. |
| |
|
|
| |
5. |
Conformance with Planned Agricultural District (PAD) Regulations |
| |
|
|
| |
|
a. |
Use |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
As discussed fully under Section C.3 of this staff report, staff has determined that the uses approved by the Planning Commission meet the definition of a "non-residential development customarily considered accessory to agriculture," as defined in Chapter 21A of the County Zoning Regulations, and therefore, a use allowed by right in the zoning district, requiring no Planned Agricultural District Permit, per Section 6352.A of the Zoning Regulations. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
In Section C.2 of this report, staff outlines why the Planning Commission determined that the use of the exotic animals should not be permitted in this case. The primary issue was that the Planning Commission did not feel that elephants could reasonably be considered accessory to sales of agriculture goods (pumpkins) in this case because elephants are not traditionally used in agricultural production in North America and that aspect of the proposal would not conform to the Local Coastal Program. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
b. |
Development Standards |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
The PAD zoning requires that agricultural development maintain a minimum distance from the front property line of 30 feet and a distance from the side and rear property lines of 20 feet. Though temporary, all the structures proposed as a part of this project comply with the required setbacks from the property lines, as illustrated by the site plan in Attachment F of this report. |
| |
|
|
| |
6. |
Conformance with the Local Coastal Program |
| |
|
|
| |
|
The proposed project is considered a use accessory to agriculture, which would generally be exempt from issuance of a Coastal Development Permit. Planning staff, however, has determined that issuance of a Coastal Development Permit is required in this case because the proposed temporary tents are within 100 feet of Pilarcitos Creek and because the use, while allowed, does constitute an intensification of the normal use of the parcel. The Planning Commission reviewed this project and found it, with the exception of the use of exotic animals, to be in conformance with all applicable Policies of the LCP, with a specific discussion of the following: |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Policy 5.20 (Agricultural Management Practices) requires that wastewater and other byproducts of agricultural activities are properly disposed of. The applicant has submitted a manure management plan to staff which has met waste management requirements. Additionally, the applicant will be required to clean the property of any debris after the end of pumpkin season, ensuring that all waste is properly disposed of. The Planning Commission believes that as conditioned, the proposal complies with this policy and protects the agricultural capacity of the property for future agricultural use. |
| |
|
Policy 7.11 (Establishment of Buffer Zones) requires that all development maintain a minimum distance from Riparian Corridors of 50 ft. The applicant has shown on plans submitted that none of the proposed temporary tents will be less than 50 ft. from the Pilarcitos Creek, which runs along the southern edge of the project parcel. To ensure that the distance between the proposed activities and the Riparian area adjacent to the creek is maximized, the Planning Commission included a condition of approval requiring that all elements of this proposal, including temporary tents, trailers and activities maintain a minimum distance of 50 ft. from the southern edge of the dirt road which runs adjacent to the riparian area and separates the riparian area from the proposed activities to the north. Therefore, the Planning Commission believes that this proposal, as conditioned, is in full conformance with this LCP policy. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Policy 8.5 (Location of Development) requires that development be situated such that the impact to scenic corridors is minimized. The Planning Commission has required that the project site be restored to its natural state and that all structures associated with these temporary events are removed from the site within seven days of the end of pumpkin season. The Planning Commission feels that with these conditions, the project will be in conformance with this policy and will have a minimal visual impact on the Highway 92 County Scenic Corridor. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Policy 8.21 (Commercial Signs) prohibits off-premise commercial signs, except for seasonal temporary agricultural signs and prohibits brightly colored illuminated colored, rotating, reflective, blinking, flashing or moving signs, pennants, or streamers. The Planning Commission conditioned the project to prohibit any off-site signs and has also provided guidelines for appropriate sign design and color. The Planning Commission feels that the allowed signs, as conditioned, will comply with this policy. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Policy 9.9 (Regulation of Development in Floodplains) requires that development in areas prone to flooding meet requirements that minimize the impact of flooding on proposed structures and aim to prevent damage caused by structures in the event of flooding. A small portion of the property adjacent to Pilarcitos Creek is within a floodway. While most of the activities are outside the floodway, a few of the structures may encroach on this area of probable flooding. The applicant will be required to apply for building permits for all temporary structures and tents erected on the site and comply with all building regulations regarding erection of structures in a flood zone. The Planning Commission believes that compliance with the building codes and issuance of the required building permits will ensure that the structures and tents on the property will be safe and will conform with the requirements of this policy. |
| |
|
|
| |
7. |
Conformance with Confined Animal Regulations |
| |
|
|
| |
|
The applicant is proposing a petting zoo and pony rides. The applicant is anticipating eight ponies will be available for pony rides and 13 animals will be available in the petting zoo, including domestic animals such as goats, sheep, and a donkey. If the applicant were proposing to have a petting zoo or pony rides on the property year-round or for more than 30 days, any large-breed animal (300 lbs. or more) on the property would be allowed, subject to issuance of a Confined Animal Permit. Section 7700.3 of the Confined Animal Regulations states that if an animal that would normally be subject to the confined animal ordinance is kept for less than 30 days, then the animal is exempt from the regulations. Therefore, the proposed project is not subject to the Confined Animal Ordinance or issuance of a Confined Animal Permit. To ensure the proper keeping of the animals and care for the environment, the applicant has provided the County with a Manure Management Plan, which has been reviewed by staff and found to be adequate. |
| |
|
|
| |
8. |
Conformance with Exotic Animal Ordinance |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Chapter 6.06 of the County Ordinance Code establishes the County policy for permitting the keeping of exotic animals. The Department of Environmental Health regulates and issues permits to individuals who wish to keep exotic animals in the County. The Department of Environmental Health, however, does not issue permits to circuses, traveling shows and the like that employ the use of exotic animals. While the County ordinance does not specifically define "keeping" of exotic animals, the Environmental Health Department has interpreted the applicability of the Exotic Animal Ordinance in a manner similar to the Confined Animal Ordinance, in that if the animal is not residing in the County for a period of more than one month, the animal is not being "kept" in the County. Therefore, an exotic animal permit is not required. Though an Exotic Animal Permit is not required, the applicant has been required to furnish the County Environmental Health Department with a manure management plan to ensure proper waste management. Additionally, the elephant touring company "Have Trunk, Will Travel" has provided the County with documentation that they have both their required permit from the California Department of Fish and Game and their Animal Welfare license from the United States Department of Agriculture (see Attachment G). Should the Board of Supervisors find that the elephants are a permitted use, staff feels that the project complies with the Exotic Animal Ordinance. |
| |
|
|
D. |
PUBLIC COMMENT |
| |
|
|
| |
Staff has received several letters from the public regarding this project, particularly the presence of elephants on the property, some expressing support and others concern. All of the comments received by staff are found in Attachments K and L. Following is a brief discussion of the primary concerns outlined in letters of objection to the project, not already addressed by staff's discussion above, followed by staff's response to those concerns: |
| |
|
|
| |
1. |
Traffic Impacts. Several letters expressed concern that the presence of the elephants caused major traffic delays along Highway 92 in October 2002. Reasons for the delays included that individuals were slowing to see the elephants, protestors against the elephants were impeding traffic, and that many visitors were slowing to make left turns into or out of 4-C's Ranch. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Staff recognizes that during the month of October (Halloween/pumpkin season) the activities at 4-C's Ranch, along with operation of similar activities on properties to the west of the project parcel (Lemos and Pastorino Farms) creates congestion due to pedestrian movement and vehicles making left-hand turns as cars enter and exit properties on Highway 92. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) currently has an arrangement with the owners of the Lemos and Pastorino Farms on Highway 92 (12320 San Mateo Road and 12391 San Mateo Road) to provide personnel assistance to direct pedestrian and vehicular movement between these two properties. The Planning Commission approved a condition requiring that the applicant coordinate efforts with the neighboring operations to the west to provide additional CHP support to the applicant's property. Also, the applicant will be required to provide traffic monitors to direct on-site movement of traffic and ensure that vehicles are properly entering and exiting the ranch. |
| |
|
|
| |
2. |
Animal Rights. Some letters expressed objection that the elephants should not be allowed because they are treated cruelly or simply do not believe they should be kept in captivity. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Staff recommends that the Board uphold the decision of the Commission to deny use of exotic animals, including elephants, as part of this operation, in which case this concern would be essentially moot. |
| |
|
|
| |
In addition to receiving written comments, the Planning Commission heard many arguments from the public both for and against the proposed project on the day of the public hearing. The Planning Commission listened to citizens' concerns regarding the disruption of traffic along Highway 92, due to the elephants in October 2002. They heard stories of traffic being almost stopped on the highway due to drivers slowing to see the elephants and also protestors stopping cars to hand out pamphlets. The Planning Commission also heard testimony expressing concern for the treatment of elephants in captivity, while the elephants' owners expressed their deep love for the animals, which they said they would never abuse. The Planning Commission considered all of the arguments both for and against allowing the elephants and finally determined that the use of exotic animals should not be allowed at 4-C's Ranch, partially due to a feeling that their presence was very disruptive to the community in October 2002. Thus, the Planning Commission prohibited their use in the Conditions of Approval they adopted. |
| |
|
|
E. |
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW |
| |
|
| |
This project is exempt from environmental review under provisions of CEQA, Section 15303, Class 3, regarding erection of small new structures. |
| |
|
F. |
REVIEWING AGENCIES |
| |
|
| |
1. |
Building Inspection Section |
| |
2. |
Department of Public Works |
| |
3. |
Environmental Health Department |
| |
4. |
Half Moon Bay Fire Department |
| |
5. |
City of Half Moon Bay |
| |
6. |
Midcoast Community Council |
| |
|
|
VISION ALIGNMENT |
| |
The project to incorporate temporary entertainment activities associated with the traditional celebration of pumpkin season at 4-C's Ranch keeps the commitment of preserving and providing people access to our natural environment and goal number 15, which is to provide residents access to recreational opportunities. |
| |
ATTACHMENTS |
| |
A. |
Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval (Denial of Appeal) |
B. |
Grounds of Appeal |
C. |
Parcel Map |
D. |
Prime Soils Map |
E. |
Site Plan |
F. |
Vendor Information: Petting Zoo |
G. |
Vendor Information: Pony Rides |
H. |
Vendor Information: Air Balloon Slide |
I. |
Vendor Information: Elephant Rides |
J. |
Letters of Support for Project |
K. |
Letters Opposing Project |
| |
|